Campbell
Relaxed Intensity
A funny joke to you.
But we're not talking about specific 4E mechanics. We're essentially asking "Is PF2 Paizo's Waterloo?"
Maybe you should have said that instead then.
A funny joke to you.
But we're not talking about specific 4E mechanics. We're essentially asking "Is PF2 Paizo's Waterloo?"
The lesson I learned from 5E, and the lesson Paizo ought to have learned too, is that you don't fix 3E by tweaking curvatures.So this does change the curvature somewhat.
I didn't start the thread.Maybe you should have said that instead then.
There are many somethings similar between 3.5 and 5e.In the context of your quote, it's possible to read this to mean something is similar between 3E and 5E.
LFQW is not just a fancy way if saying "Wizards rule, fighters drool!" LFQW is a structural feature of class designs in every instance of D&D, except 4e AEDU classes.
4e /completely eliminated LFQW/. Everyone gained limited-use resources at the same rate, all of them scaled at the same rate. Those resources, along with class features, were very different, but they weren't progressing at different rates, which is what LFQW describes.
What it didn't do was perfectly balance classes. Fighters were still the worst out of combat, especially compared to Rogues & Rangers. Wizards were still given a few too many toys, and were still over-versatile. Even if the gaps were a lot smaller, they were still there.
That's not LFQW.
You come across as someone not listening, just rambling on.There are many somethings similar between 3.5 and 5e.
For instance, all the classes in 5e were in 3.5 - two were even introduced by it.
That's an odd lesson to learn from 5e when "tweaking curvatures" is exactly what WotC did with 5e.The lesson I learned from 5E, and the lesson Paizo ought to have learned too, is that you don't fix 3E by tweaking curvatures.
You do a comprehensive smart overhaul where entire subsystems are thrown out and expectation rejected outright.
That's an ironic accusation to make.You come across as someone not listening, just rambling on.
That's an odd lesson to learn from 5e when "tweaking curvatures" is exactly what WotC did with 5e.
That's an ironic accusation to make.
All nice and good, but here I am talking specifically about the spell system.See this I don’t agree with. 5e didn’t just tweak 3e. 5e took most of the complete overhaul that 4e did, repackaged it and then sent it out the door.
I mean very little of 3e made it to 5e without being strained through the 4e sieve.
Skills, bounded accuracy, limited spell lists, powers for classes, two step recovery, huge reduction in lethality- these are all 4e designs. All wrapped up in a pretty presentation that has folks drooling for more.